We haven't been attacked again and I have plenty of gas for my car,
albeit not cheap gas. At least things are getting done, unlike the Dems
just raising taxes with no feasible plan to use the funds. Any party
that has a main strategy of "getting the votes of the angry poor by
sticking it to the rich" has no place in power. Let them come up with
some ideas rather than criticisms and maybe they'll get a chance

Sticking it to the rich? Dear God almighty, I think you actually
believe that.
The largest transfers of wealth -- from the poor to the rich --
in the history of the world occurred under Reagan, and is now
occurring under Bush, with equally catastrophic consequences
for our economy:
http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman05302003.html

Your liberal banter is very entertaining! Do you actually believe that
paying down the debt by taxing the rich will make the lives of the poor
any better? And your article fails to mention the RECORD GDP. The
national debt grows every year, just as I pay more taxes every year,
because my income grows. Its how things work.
The reason the "gap" is growing is because the economy is booming.
Those with investments, such as owning a home, prosper, those will
nothing stay poor. Bush's idea is an "ownership society", which at
least addresses the issue. Maybe you don't like his ideas, but at least
he has some. Which is more than I can say for the opposition. Taxing
the rich is a way to get votes from angry poor people. Its not a
solution to anything.

And your "so what" attitude is precisely what will drive this nation
into eventual bankruptcy. Our national debt is approaching EIGHT
TRILLION DOLLARS, and Americans are already working three
hours of every 8-hour workday just to pay INTEREST on this debt.
Read the article I cited in my first response. We're impoverishing
ourselves and our grandkids.

It's "booming" with shit service sector jobs. Real wages are and
have been on the decline.

So you'll need to explain the record number of home foreclosures
and personal bankruptcies since Bush's "home ownership" ruse.
Personal wealth isn't increasing; mortgage lending standards are
simply being thrown out the window to give the illusion of more
home ownership. The fact is, as interest rates edge up, most of
these people are going to lose "their" homes.

I'd say such things are a function of people living beyond their means.
It's not anyone's fault except the person who took out a loan they
couldn't pay. People who bet that they will never be out of work are
sometimes wrong. People who can afford a 200K house routinely buy 350K
houses. Its not the goverment's fault. Its the fault of people who want
to own things that they can't afford.

Give us a break. In your wonderful Bush "boom economy", 55%
of American families are living from fucking paycheck to paycheck.
Actually "living" is not the right word for it. Surviving or subsisting
are more accurate descriptions.
Credit card debt is at an all-time high, and savings are at an
all-time low. There's the bottom line on your "boom economy".

To the contrary, when lenders throw standards out the window
and start lending money to people who they know will likely be
unable to pay it back, they're as guilty as the borrowers. In fact
moreso, because it's simple human nature to try and live according
to (and often beyond) one's means. Just look at our current
federal government for a perfect example.

The problem with your complaint/analysis is that giving these "people"
a $300. tax cut is not going to change their plight. The economy would
certainly not be better under democratic rule; you'd just have more
hand-outs to poor people. At least now they're trying to find work. The
best chance for poor people is to create jobs, which you do by giving
people more money to spend.
When is the "middle class" going to figure out that you lose when you
try to take down your bosses? As a business owner, you raise my taxes
and I'm going to cut my costs. That means laying someone off. Hiring
part-time people instead of full-time. I'll be less generous with
raises. I'll get a health plan with lesser coverage. You complained
under Clinton that the "jobs" weren't good jobs. You just don't get it,
maybe because you just need to be angry with someone. Anyone.

Perhaps they are, but its the people who make the choice to overextend
themselves. People take drugs, don't blame the dealers. People borrow
too much, don't blame the banks for trying to make money. People buy
SUVs that get crappy gas milage, don't blame the automakers. People
have more kids than then can afford, don't blame sex-education. Blame
people. People are stupid. That you can write down. Some "people" in
this shitty house with a broken down car on my way to work just put in
a $2000 stained glass door. Do you think they NEED that to live? No,
some woman "wanted" it. Stupid people. I'm sure they'll be filing for
bankruptcy (and making the taxpayers pay for their nice door) as soon
as the economy turns.
The mantra in the US seems to be "Carpe Diem". Those are the people
with the problems; the biggest whiners of all. Because they didn't plan
for their future. Too bad for them. I'm not responsible for paying for
their irresponsibility.

You people are so misguided!! Reagan and Bush made us poorer???!!! HMPH!!!
Bill Clinton do anything for me either! You can't blame it on the Democrats
OR the Republicans!
When will you learn that the president has absolutely nothing to do with the
economy. It all falls on the shoulders of Alan Greenspan.
So blame a Jewish President for our economic woes! I mean, wasn't it Abraham
Licoln that appointed Greenspan?????

If you knew your history you wouldn't need to ask that question.
In 1986/87 a proposal to amend our corporate tax code, which
would have taxed income from foreign production was dropped
at the insistence of Ronald Reagan. The outsourcing of U.S.
manufacturing jobs started immediately thereafter and has been
steadily increasing ever since. The so-called "boom years" of
Clinton were almost exclusively a result of the high-tech/dot com
bubble. All other manufacturing sectors continued to export jobs
throughout the 1990's.
Our federal government rewards U.S. corporations for exporting
as many manufacturing jobs as possible. Had Reagan removed
the economic incentive to outsource back in 1986 we wouldn't
have experienced such a massive loss of manufacturing jobs, in
fact it's highly probable we would have had a net gain of these jobs.
The end result of this policy has been catastrophic. One-third of
manufacturing jobs have disappeared from many states, such as
Ohio and Pennsylvania, and been replaced with shit service sector
jobs. Personally, out of the 100 or so people I know, the number
who are making as much or more than they were 4 or 5 years ago
can be counted on one hand. Everyone else is making much less
(in many cases, one-third to one-half) what they were 5 years ago.

Maybe you should have been a computer programmer instead? They've been
telling you for 30 years that manufacturing jobs were on their way out,
so why haven't you moved into something else? I do something completely
different that what I did 10 years ago. If you don't adapt to the
environment, you wither away.

Another uninformed liberal (sigh). Unlike your "manufacturing" jobs,
computer programmers have quantifiable skills. If you are a REALLY bad
programmer, you may lose your job to outsourcing. But there are a lot
more jobs than there are good programmers. I know many programmers,
almost none of them I would call "good", and most of them make a lot
more than you can make working a manufacturing job. In fact, to me most
of them are patently incompetent.
Again, if you are bad at your job, you have no reason to believe you
can keep doing it. Thats what's wrong with the manufacturing union
model; the concept that everyone is the same and worth equal pay for
the same job is simply anti-competitive.

Another uninformed liberal (sigh). Unlike your "manufacturing" jobs,
computer programmers have quantifiable skills. If you are a REALLY bad
programmer, you may lose your job to outsourcing. But there are a lot
more jobs than there are good programmers. I know many programmers,
almost none of them I would call "good", and most of them make a lot
more than you can make working a manufacturing job. In fact, to me most
of them are patently incompetent.
Again, if you are bad at your job, you have no reason to believe you
can keep doing it. Thats what's wrong with the manufacturing union
model; the concept that everyone is the same and worth equal pay for
the same job is simply anti-competitive.

Log in

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.